Idaho’s dangerous gamble: Turning lies into felonies and the threat to free speech
By willowt // 2025-03-06
Copy
 
  • Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle introduced a bill that would make knowingly spreading false information about someone a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, a $100,000 fine, or both, sparking concerns about free speech and government overreach.
  • The bill aims to address statements made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, but it raises questions about the limits of free speech and the potential for government abuse.
  • Moyle's defense of the bill misinterprets the First Amendment and historical precedents, ignoring the Founding Fathers' acceptance of hyperbolic speech and the discredited "fire in a crowded theater" analogy.
  • The bill grants state attorneys and prosecutors the power to pursue charges for false statements about public officials, potentially leading to the criminalization of legitimate criticism and stifling dissent.
  • The proposed legislation undermines democratic principles by shifting defamation from civil to criminal law, risking abuse of power, overwhelming the legal system and eroding fundamental freedoms.
In a move that has sparked widespread alarm among free speech advocates, Idaho House Speaker Mike Moyle has introduced a bill that would criminalize the act of knowingly spreading false information about another person. The proposed legislation, which would classify such actions as a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $100,000 fine, or both, has reignited debates about the limits of free speech and the dangers of government overreach. At its core, the bill seeks to target “actual malice”—statements made with the knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard for the truth. But while the intent may be to curb harmful misinformation, the implications of such a law are far-reaching and deeply troubling. Moyle, a Republican, has defended the bill by invoking a narrow interpretation of the First Amendment. “I’m a firm believer in our First Amendment right, but I also believe that our founding fathers did not include in the First Amendment as being able to lie about somebody,” Moyle declared. This statement, while seemingly well-intentioned, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and constitutional law. The Founding Fathers, far from seeking to police falsehoods, were themselves no strangers to hyperbolic and often false accusations. The 1800 presidential election, for example, saw Thomas Jefferson and John Adams trading outrageous claims, with Jefferson’s camp accusing Adams of wanting to crown himself king and Adams’ supporters warning that Jefferson would usher in an atheist dystopia. Yet, despite the vitriol, neither man faced criminal charges. Moyle also invoked the infamous “fire in a crowded theater” analogy, a reference to the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States. However, this analogy has been largely discredited in modern jurisprudence, as the case itself was overturned in 1969. The continued use of this argument underscores a troubling disregard for the evolution of free speech protections.

Who gets to decide what’s true?

One of the most alarming aspects of the bill is its potential to weaponize the concept of “truth.” Under the proposed law, the state attorney general and county prosecutors would have the authority to pursue charges if the false statement concerns a public official or employee in connection with their duties. This provision raises serious concerns about the politicization of truth and the chilling effect it could have on dissent. Imagine a scenario where a journalist or political commentator criticizes a government official, only to face felony charges because the official claims the criticism was false. Suddenly, the line between legitimate criticism and criminal defamation becomes blurred, and the government gains unprecedented power to silence its critics. Even within the Idaho House State Affairs Committee, there were signs of unease. Rep. Bruce Skaug, a Republican, voiced his skepticism, stating, “My concern is that if you make every liar a felon, then we’re going to be in a lot of trouble—not enough room in our jails.” His remark, while lighthearted, underscores a critical point: the bill’s broad scope could lead to a flood of prosecutions, overwhelming the legal system and infringing on individual liberties. Idaho already has civil libel laws in place, which allow individuals to seek redress for defamation without the threat of imprisonment. Under current law, a person found guilty of libel faces a fine of up to $5,000 or six months in jail. While these penalties are not insignificant, they pale in comparison to the draconian measures proposed by Moyle’s bill. By shifting defamation from a civil to a criminal matter, the bill would place the power to prosecute in the hands of the government rather than the individual. This represents a dangerous departure from the principles of due process and free expression that underpin our legal system. Moreover, the bill’s requirement for restitution adds another layer of complexity. A person convicted of “criminal libel” would be responsible for compensating the victim for specific costs incurred as a result of the false statement. While this may sound reasonable in theory, it could lead to exorbitant financial penalties that further discourage open discourse.

A threat to democracy

At its heart, this bill represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of free speech in a democratic society. The ability to criticize public officials, even harshly or inaccurately, is a cornerstone of democracy. While false statements can undoubtedly cause harm, the solution is not to criminalize speech but to foster a culture of accountability and robust public debate. History has shown us time and again that when governments are given the power to determine what is true and what is false, that power is inevitably abused. Whether it’s through censorship, intimidation, or outright suppression of dissent, the consequences of such overreach are dire. As Rep. Skaug aptly noted, “If you make every liar a felon, then we’re going to be in a lot of trouble.” But the trouble won’t just be overcrowded jails—it will be the erosion of the very freedoms that make America a beacon of liberty. Idaho’s proposed bill is not just a threat to free speech; it’s a threat to democracy itself. Sources include: ReclaimTheNet.com FoxNews.com KTVB.com
Copy